Ram Chandra Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Ram Chandra Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: FIR not quashed (prayer rejected); conditional safeguard granted — if the petitioner is arrested in pursuance of the FIR, authorities must strictly comply with Section 35 B.N.S.S., the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, the directions in Vimal Kumar (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020; judgment and order dated 28.01.2021) and the Satender Kumar Antil directions (order dated 21.01.2025).

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR dated 21.05.2025 (Case Crime No. 0086 of 2025, Sections 419, 420 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Barasagwar, District Unnao) can be entertained. +1 more

Court's answer

The first information report prima facie discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioner; therefore the prayer to quash the FIR cannot be entertained, following State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC Online SC 315, and no interference is warranted.

Ratio / Principle

Since all offences complained of in the impugned FIR are punishable with a term up to seven years, in case the petitioner is arrested in pursuance of that FIR, the respondents/authorities shall ensure strict compliance with Section 35 of B.N.S.S., the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines, the judgment and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P., 2021 (2) ACR 1147), and the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI vide order dated 21.01.2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), disposing of a writ petition seeking quashing of FIR dated 21.05.2025 (Case Crime No. 0086 of 2025) under Sections 419, 420 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Barasagwar, District Unnao, held that the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence and, relying on State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC Online SC 315, declined to interfere with the prayer to quash. Noting that all offences complained of are punishable up to seven years, the Court directed that before effecting any arrest in pursuance of the FIR, the respondents/authorities shall strictly comply with Section 35 of B.N.S.S., the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines, the judgment and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P., 2021 (2) ACR 1147), and the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI vide order dated 21.01.2025.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11122 of 2025

Ram Chandra Singh And Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. And Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ravi Shanker Tewari, Keshav Ram Chaurasia,
	Ramit Singh, Sheo Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 30

HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 21.05.2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0086 of 2025, under Sections- 419, 420 and 506 I.P.C.), Police Station- Barasagwar, District- Unnao, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioner, specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. (Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.

We have perused the first information report, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioner and therefore, the prayer made to quash the first information report cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.

However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned first information report, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned first information report, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgment and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020

CRLP No. 11122 of 2025

2

(Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147 , and further directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vide order dated 21.01.2025 be strictly complied with.

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of .

November 27, 2025 Haseen U.

(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.)

Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench